This piece of shit cannot pass! More foam-flecked Bush bashing.

[if6was9]

I don’t have the chops or the patience to add much substance to this kind of thread. I’ll just say that ETF’s description of “frightening” is pretty well on the mark. But this idiot keeps mucking up the discussion, that I was very much enjoying reading.

@duffer

Based on the amount of “Bush is bad, here’s a link” threads, I just want one thing answered before I get worked up over a proposal that may never see the light of day.

Can Bush do this without approval from Congress? Just need a starting point.

The original “innocent” question…
Oakminster tries to answer it…

I didn’t think so,

… gets the answer he was trolling for and runs with it…

which is exactly why I don’t understand threads like this.
<snip>
This is the type of common thread that gets written by people that just need to bitch about something.

… attacks the generic Bush Bashers™, the OP by implication, and any other “commoner” who disagrees with him.

Anyone else care to show how this issue is something to actually worry about? Or are we just here glom onto anytning to complain about no matter how far removed from reality it really is?

restates his “innocent” question with a chip on his shoulder…
and more attacks…

elucidator says “stunning”, which most of us were thinking…

What a deep thought. You really helped this thread. Trying to hit 20,000 in some time frame? I’ve usually disagreed with your politics, but since your return it seems most of your posts are padding wanks. I can respect an opposing opinion or stance, but you’re coming across as a joke.

That’s what’s stunning. And it’s, frankly, disappointing.

Bonus attack! attack! attack!

buns3000 bites…

Just trying to figure out if this is an actual issue or just another thread in the long list of “Bush is bad” threads.

Re-restates that he was just asking an innocent question…

Don’t worry yourself over it sweetie, there’s a world happening all around you.

and attacks…

Cervaise chimes in…

Um, I was asking if Bush was in any way capable of making this law without any intervention.

just an innocent question…

Unlike Guin I thought you were old enough to understand how stuff like this works.

misdirection attack

I’ve stated before that I have problems with this administration. I’m just not so full of viceral hatred to let it carry me over the edge in every thread. It must be some sort of defect.

two-for-the-price-of-one generic attack.

I propose that we rename both the poster AND the latin phrase ad duffernem.
And a hearty STFU too.

[Martiju]

@ArchiveGuy

The Onion, of course, nails the issue perfectly.

@Will Repair

As did The Ironic Times

It’s scary when satire becomes reality…

[Cervaise]

@if6was9

Cervaise chimes in…

Read the thread again.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

The Geneva Convention application is a bit more unclear, but I do not recall the Court decalring that the Gitmo prisoners are entitled to POW status specifically. Did they?

Not POW status as such, but:

The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the “at least” applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:

1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan’s case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;

2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants “in the territory of” a signatory; and

3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a “regularly constituted court,” which the military commission is not.

Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan.

The Court did not hear the question that had decided the district court opinion, namely that Hamdan was entitled to a GCIII Art. 5 hearing instead of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Hamdan observes that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that if there be “any doubt” whether he is entitled to prisoner-of-war protections, he must be afforded those protections until his status is determined by a “competent tribunal.” . Because we hold that Hamdan may not, in any event, be tried by the military commission the President has convened pursuant to the November 13th Order and Commission Order No. 1, the question whether his potential status as a prisoner of war independently renders illegal his trial by military commission may be reserved.[13]

[if6was9]

@Cervaise

Read the thread again.

I just meant you were the next poster to mention duffer and then you got attacked too.

Didn’t mean to sound snarky.

[Lightnin]

I have no delusions that this will pass. I don’t think Bush even expects it to pass, it’s all just political manuevering to him.

However, the very fact that he’s willing to attempt to get this bitch passed is despicable, as it shows how little respect he has for the Constitution. I’m quite surprised that it’s not hitting the news harder than it is. I’m also surprised that there are Republicans that are still willing to stand by him.

Then again, maybe he’s just trying to really nail down the “Worst. President. EVER.” title.

[Cervaise]

@Lightnin'

Then again, maybe he’s just trying to really nail down the “Worst. President. EVER.” title.

Oh, he’s already got it. He passed Harding a while ago.

Now he’s just trying to set the bar unreachably high, DiMaggio style.

[42fish]

@scotandrsn

Still, the very fact that it has been proposed shows an almost unbelievable disdain for Constitutional principles, by the office of a man sworn to uphold them, all the while claiming he needs to function as a “unary executive”.

I believe you mispelled ‘unitary executive.’

Or, given the way Bush is pissing on the Constitution with this proposal, maybe you misspelled ‘urinary executive.’

[Spavined_Gelding]

There is an editorial in today’s New York Times that deals with this topic and my grump about the exclusion of the uniformed lawyers from the formulation of the commissions. It is on this side of the Times’s pay-to-pay barrier but it does require registration. Worth reading.

[Bricker]

Again I would like to point out that the claims that Bush is somehow flouting the Constitution with this proposal are, at best, unsupported by any case law. There is no law that applies the full protections of the Constitution to the present situation in Gitmo.

The Supreme Court said that Bush couldn’t do this because it wasn’t authorized by Congress. Now he’s asking Congress to authorize it. If they do, it will comport with the Court’s ruling.

Again: I oppose this request, because I believe it to be unwise. But everyone above that’s talking about Constitutional implications is, I believe, making a definitive statement where the law is at best unresolved.

[E-Sabbath]

Bricker, what protections of the Constitution are affected by this proposed law, and its implications?

See, you’re being an evasive law-speaking guy again, limiting it merely to Gitmo and full protections. As I see it, it applies to more than merely Gitmo, and it might apply to you and me.

[elucidator]

Would it suck any less if it were legal? Would it be any less of a betrayal of our principles?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Would it suck any less if it were legal? Would it be any less of a betrayal of our principles?

Who is saying it wouldn’t?

A few are simply pointing out that “it’s unconstitution” is factually wrong. *Hamdan *was not a decision about the constitutionality of the tribunals-- it simply was an interpretation of the statute.

[elucidator]

It’s true, some of us less sophisticated types tend to use the phrase “unconstitutional” as a code word meaning “shouldn’t oughta be done”. They are no doubt grateful for the clarification. Now, having disposed of issues of no real consequence…

[Revenant_Threshold]

@elucidator

It’s true, some of us less sophisticated types tend to use the phrase “unconstitutional” as a code word meaning “shouldn’t oughta be done”. They are no doubt grateful for the clarification. Now, having disposed of issues of no real consequence…

Whether or not something is constitutional is of real consequence. For one thing, it affects whether something can or cannot be made legal without an actual amendment, a much more difficult process than otherwise (at least, that’s how I understand your funny American ways ;)). Morally there’s no difference, but in practical and legal terms there most certainly is.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

There is no law that applies the full protections of the Constitution to the present situation in Gitmo.

“No law” but the Constitution itself, which is the supreme law of the land. Has SCOTUS ever ruled it does not apply to persons in U.S. military custody outside U.S. territory? Assuming it does apply unless SCOTUS says otherwise would seem to be the safe, default position, would it not?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

It’s true, some of us less sophisticated types tend to use the phrase “unconstitutional” as a code word meaning “shouldn’t oughta be done”.

Well, I didn’t have my Captain Fantastic decoder ring handy, so thanks for the clarification.

They are no doubt grateful for the clarification. Now, having disposed of issues of no real consequence…

You consider the constitutionality of legislation to be “of no real consequence”? The mind boggles.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I read that as an opinion that something can be technically Constututional and still be ethically ahorrent or even be a betrayal of the spirit of the document if not the letter.

[John_Mace]

So did I. But that still wouldn’t make questions of constitutionality “of no consequence”, especially since no one in this thread has hailed the proposed legislation as being good policy, and several have questioned its constitutionality. Parts of it might very well be declared unconstitutional should it be passed, but it’s a common myth that Hamdan was a ruling on the constitutionality of the tribunals-- it wasn’t.

[elucidator]

Issues of constitutionality are not “of no consequence”. Didn’t say anything of the sort. If you’re going to stuff words into my mouth, be so kind as to stuff words you already approve of.